Trotsky's analysis was correct. In the post-war period, Europe came together to form the EEC, and, then, the EU, driving towards ever closer political union, i.e. the creation of a single European state. Similar developments have occurred in South America, North America, Asia and Africa. But, the process itself, had already, objectively, developed beyond even these limits, requiring even larger single markets, and global para state institutions. It manifest as globalisation, in which, far from the division of the world into geographically based colonies, with their closed and protected markets, the needs of imperialism (global industrial capital) was to be able to break down existing monopolies and barriers, and to exploit global labour supplies for the production of surplus value, and brought about a significant new international division of labour and rapid industrialisation and development of large parts of the globe, making the working-class, for the first time the largest class on the planet, and bringing with it a huge increase in global trade.
Those who claim that Russia is not “imperialist”, because its businesses are not dependent on the export of capital, not only do not understand the nature of the modern ruling class, as a global class of owners of fictitious-capital, but also simply base themselves mechanically on the failed analysis of Lenin's “Imperialism”, which was wrong in 1916, and even more wrong and irrelevant, today. If what is meant is that Russian companies do not export capital, that isn't true, as set out, here. In 2007, Russia ranked 13th in terms of its foreign direct investment in other countries, having moved up from 35th in 1995. But, in terms of the ruling class, as now, a global class of owners of fictitious capital, this metric itself is meaningless.
The ruling class does not hold its wealth and capital in the form of real industrial capital but of fictitious capital, of global bonds, shares, property and their derivatives. The Russian ruling class, like every other such ruling class, owns its wealth in the form of these assets, and like every other part of that global ruling class, buys and sells those assets in whatever part of the world currently provides it with the greatest total return. It can buy and sell those assets at the press of a computer key, just as it is itself footloose in terms of where it lives, owning property in many metropolitan cities, and moving to them as it chooses, which is why so many Russian oligarchs are to be found, not only owning large amounts of shares in British companies, but also themselves living in London.
For the reasons set out earlier, the objective interests of this global ruling class of speculators is served by that process of globalisation, of the breaking down of national borders, and so on, because it reduces costs raising realised profits without an equivalent accumulation of capital, and because it raises the rate of turnover of capital, and so the annual rate of profit. In so doing, it increases the amount of profit available for payment of interest/dividends, and, also, thereby, creates the basis for a continued rise in asset prices. There is a notable difference in the interests of this ruling class, which owns this fictitious-capital, and those of the Libertarians, overly represented in the ranks of the financial market traders, who make their profits precisely from trading, and for whom, therefore, volatility, the potential for arbitrage across different markets is a requirement.
But, a definition of imperialism based mechanically on the idea of the export of capital, is not even consistent with Lenin either. For Lenin, the defining factor was that the capital in the given country had reached the stage of large-scale, industrial capital, organised in monopolies, oligopolies and trusts, linked to the state, via finance capital, operating through the Stock Exchange, and other financial institutions, as well as much wider considerations in terms of its relations with other imperialist states.. Trotsky, made the same point in relation to his analysis of Czechoslovakia, in rejecting the kinds of arguments raised today by the USC, for support for Ukraine.
“During the critical week in September, we have been told, voices were heard even at the left flank of socialism maintaining that in case of “single combat” between Czechoslovakia and Germany, the proletariat should help Czechoslovakia and save its “national independence” even in alliance with Benes. This hypothetical case did not occur – the heroes of Czechoslovakian independence, as was to be expected, capitulated without a struggle. However, in the interests of the future we must here point out the grave and most dangerous mistake of these untimely theoreticians of “national independence.”
Even irrespective of its international ties Czechoslovakia constitutes a thoroughly imperialist state. Economically, monopoly capitalism reigns there. Politically, the Czech bourgeoisie dominates (perhaps soon we will have to say, dominated!) several oppressed nationalities. Such a war, even on the part of isolated Czechoslovakia would thus have been carried on not for national independence but for the maintenance and if possible the extension of the borders of imperialist exploitation.
(Trotsky - Social-Patriotic Sophistry)
No comments:
Post a Comment